GOP lawsuit over Nevada mail ballot deadline tossed

(CN) — A federal judge in Nevada on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit by the Republican National Committee and Donald Trump’s campaign claiming the state’s deadline for mail-in ballots, four days after Election Day, is unconstitutional.

Chief U.S. District Judge Miranda Du, a Barack Obama appointee, agreed with Nevada state and county officials that the Republicans had failed to show they are disadvantaged by the deadline and, as such, that they lacked standing to sue.

“The causal link between counting mail ballots received after Election Day in Nevada and organizational plaintiffs’ alleged electoral injuries is too speculative to support standing,” Du wrote.

Nevada lawmakers a few years ago changed the deadline for mail-in ballots to four days after Election Day if they are mailed on or before that day. According to the Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign, this contravenes federal law establishing a uniform Election Day and allows Nevada to count invalid votes, thereby violating the 14th Amendment rights to stand for office and to vote.

President Joe Biden narrowly defeated Trump in Nevada in 2020, and the state could be pivotal in the upcoming presidential election in November.

The Republicans argued Democrats are more likely to vote by mail and to vote later, and because of this, they are more likely to cast mail ballots that are received after Election Day.

“Even if the first two points have been adequately pled — which is not altogether clear — it does not necessarily follow that mail ballots arriving after Election Day will skew Democratic,” Du wrote in rejecting this line of argument. “And even if later-arriving mail ballots have favored Democrats past elections, it is far from guaranteed that Nevada voters will behave similarly this November.”

Ballots received after Election Day should not be counted, Claire Zunk, a spokesperson for the Republican National Committee, said in a response to the decision.

“Our case fights a Nevada law that shouldn’t be on the books; it breaks federal law and allows mail ballots to be counted after Election Day,” Zunk said. “Rather than letting us fight this in court, a liberal judge unjustifiably dismissed our case. Political parties must be allowed to fight invalid election laws that threaten the integrity of our elections. We are committed to protecting the ballot and we will pursue further legal action in this case.”

The judge also wasn’t persuaded by the argument that the deadline for mail-in ballots would somehow force Republican candidates to spend more money on “chasing” mail ballots and on post-election activities.

“Any diversion of resources to an Election Day ‘mail ballot chase’ program appears to be nothing more than ‘business as usual’ for organizational plaintiffs,” Du wrote.

There is no evidence, according to the judge, that Republicans wouldn’t round up mail ballots in pretty much the same way if they were due at county clerks’ offices on Election Day instead of four days later. They would simply conduct those same activities a few days earlier in November or over a shortened period of time.

And although it may require more expenditures for poll watchers to monitor receipt of mail-in ballots four days after Election Day, there are no claims that the deadline harms the integrity of the mail ballot counting process, such as by increasing the risk of error or fraud, Du found.

As a result, this causal chain was too attenuated to support standing to sue.

“Just as physicians do not have standing to challenge the approval of a drug ‘simply because more individuals might then show up . . . in doctors’ offices with follow-on injuries,’ organizations who train and hire poll watchers and ballot counters do not have standing to challenge the expansion of access to mail voting merely because it might create more work for them,” Du wrote.

Follow @edpettersson